Bombay High Court

BALAJI VIJAYKUMAR MANGRULEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED
Bench: SHAILESH P BRAHME

Holding

The Court held that further custody is not required and granted bail to the applicant pending trial.

Summary

Balaji, a 42‑year‑old farmer, was arrested on 18‑Dec‑2025 in connection with Crime No. 656/2025 for alleged sexual exploitation, stalking and threats against a married woman, alleged to have occurred over several incidents between March 2024 and April 2025. The charges were under Sections 64(2)(f), 64(2)(m) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The applicant sought regular bail, arguing that the prosecution’s theory was improbable, the relationship was consensual, and there was no incriminating material such as CDR evidence or forensic findings. The State contended that the informant’s statements, supplementary statements and witness testimonies supported the prosecution’s case. The Court noted the lack of material evidence, the questionable credibility of the prosecution’s narrative, and held that further custody was not required at this stage, granting bail with conditions. The bail order required a bond, surety, non‑contact with the victim, cooperation with investigation, and surrender of identification documents.

Issues considered

What is the adequacy of the evidence to justify continued pre‑trial detention under Sections 64(2)(f), 64(2)(m) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Does the alleged consensual nature of the relationship preclude the applicability of the offences charged?
Whether the applicant’s alleged threats and alleged sexual exploitation warrant denial of bail despite the seriousness of the offences.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 351(2), 64(2)(f), 64(2)(m)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 183

Subjects

bail
sexual assault
stalking
threats
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
pre‑trial detention
evidence
CDR
medical examination

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:19309
19 BA 606 26.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 606 OF 2026

Balaji s/o Vijaykumar Mangrule,
Age 42 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Shivba Nagar, Degloor, Tq.
Degloor, Dist. Nanded … Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
Police Station Bhagyanagar,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded. … Respondent.
…
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Deshpande Gaurav L.
A.P.P. for Respondent/State : Mr. C.V. Bhadane
Advocate for Assist to APP : Mr. Rahul R. Awhad h/f Mr. Hake Rupesh
Bapurao
...
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

DATE : 28.04.2026

PER COURT :

Heard both sides.

2. The applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.
656/2025, registered with Bhagyanagar Police Station, District Nanded, for
the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(f), 64(2)(m), 351(2) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. It is reported by the informant that applicant was brother in law of
her sister Alka. She was knowing him and his wife and they were present for
a ceremony. The photographs and videos of the ceremony were shared by
the applicant with the informant. It is alleged that applicant was stalking
her. It is further alleged that on 23.03.2024, when the informant and her

1/4
19 BA 606 26.odt

daughter had been to the place of applicant, she was subjected to rape in the
mid night. The applicant is alleged to have threatened the informant for
making the photographs and videos viral on social media. It is further
alleged that on 10.06.2024 there was another episode of sexual assault. She
is alleged to have been threatened by sending photographs of suicide. The
applicant is alleged to have exploited her in the month of March and April
2025 also. The law was set into motion and he was arrested on 18.12.2025.
The Charge-sheet is filed on 27.01.2026.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire prosecution
theory is improbable. The informant had consensually kept the relationship
for sufficient long time with the applicant. She could have made complaint
had she not been the consenting party or she was coerced by the applicant.
My attention is adverted to CDR report to falsify the theory of the episode
occurred on 23.03.2024. The delayed registration of FIR and repetitive
sexual encounter would indicate consensual relations. The history narrated
by the informant at the time of medical examination would deny the
prosecution theory.

5. Learned A.P.P. would submit that the applicant threatened the
informant from time to time of sending the photographs of his proposed
suicide. The supplementary statement of the informant and her statement
under Section 183 are consistent with the prosecution theory. The statement
of witnesses Somnath, Rajnikant and Rahul would make out the case against
the applicant. The informant is subjected to sexual exploitation under the
threat.

6. The informant is a married woman and has two children. She was
acquainted with the applicant, who is a distant relative. The report refers to
first episode on 23.03.2024 at Nanded. The next episode on 10.06.2024
and further more in March and April 2025. From 23.03.2024 till filing of
the complaint on 18.12.2025, the applicant is alleged to have been sexually

2/4
19 BA 606 26.odt

exploited the informant. It is the case of the prosecution that constant
threats of making the photographs viral were extended for obtaining the
sexual pleasures.

7. It is incomprehensible as to why the informant did not approach the
police or cause intervention of the elderly persons in the family. No
circumstances are pointed out to indicate that she was unable to approach
the police. Only reason assigned by her was the threats given by the
applicant. I find some substance in the submissions of learned counsel for
the applicant that prolonged relationship between the applicant and the
informant involving repetitive episodes of sexual encounter would indicate
consensual relationship.

8. My attention is adverted to CDR disclosing the phone calls of the
applicant and the informant. At this stage, I am not impressed by the
submissions. This aspect can be gone into during the course of trial.

9. My attention is adverted to the history given by the informant at the
time of her medical examination. The informant is alleged to have been
lured by the applicant, by extending promise to marry and to look after her
children. This aspect of the matter is missing in her complaint. The
prosecution theory appears to be improbable. Being a married woman and
being mother of two children, medical examination is of very little help to
the prosecution.

10. No incriminating material is recovered from the applicant or from his
mobile handset. The purport of statement under Section 183 would be gone
into during the course of trial. The statements of witnesses Somnath,
Rajnikant and Rahul are of little help to make out a case against the
applicant at this stage of the proceeding.

11. The applicant is behind bar since 18.12.2025. Further custody is not
required. I, therefore, pass following order:

3/4
19 BA 606 26.odt

12. The Bail Application is allowed.

13. The applicant Balaji s/o Vijaykumar Mangrule shall be released on
bail in connection with Crime No. 656/2025, registered with Bhagyanagar
Police Station, District Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections
64(2)(f), 64(2)(m), 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on following
conditions:

(a) The applicant shall furnish P.R. bond of Rs.
50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety
of like amount.

(b) The applicant shall desist from indulging into
contacting the victim or her witnesses through social
media.

(d) The applicant shall furnish his mobile/cell number
and address to the investigating officer.

(e) The applicant shall surrender his Aadhar Card and
PAN card to the investigating officer.

( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)

mkd/-

4/4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…